voice them like the plague. facebook.com. we will re-air the hearing nearly five hours tonight beginning at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. you can find it online. questioning byhe the ranking democrat senator dianne feinstein. you aanted to ask the firing of the fbi director, specifically, i have your later -- letter dated to the president, specifically what was your designated role in the decision to fire director call me? a.g. sessions: it is a matter i can share some information about

because the president himself has talked about it and revealed that letter. i asked deputy rosenstein and make a recommendation in writing. we prepared those and submitted it to the president. , i don't thinkin it has been fully understood the significance of the error mr. comey made on the clinton matter . for the first time i'm aware of and all of my experience, i don't think i've heard of the situation in which a major case in which the department of justice prosecutors were in an investigation, the investigative agency announces the closure of the investigation. a few weeks before this happened he was testifying before the congress and he said he thought

he did the right thing and would do it again. the deputy attorney general rosenstein, 27 years in the department of justice, harvard graduate must serve for eight years under president obama, and four years under president bush, he said that was a usurpation of the position of the department of justice. particularly we were concerned that he would do it again. i think that was a basis that called for a fresh start at the f ei. he had many talents. there is no doubt about it. no hard feelings about that but i'm excited about the new director, who you have confirmed with an overwhelming vote. i believe he is going to be able

to do the job of fbi director with great skill and integrity. what did president trump tell you was his reason for firing director call me? -- director comey. and mr. rosenstein to take a look at it. my understanding was these letters were presented from you dated may 9 and from rosenstein dated the same date, a response to that request to take a look at the department. >> what i can tell you, he did andfor our written opinion we submitted that to him. it did not represent any change in either one of our opinions.

asked to provide it, and we did. >> did the president mention his concern about lifting the cloud on the russia investigation? calls for as: that communication i've had with the president and i believe it remains confidential. >> but you don't deny there was a communication? confirmsions: i do not or deny the existence of any communication between the president that i considered to be confidential. >> when did you first big with the president about firing director call me? i think that is also covered by my opening statement. i believe the president had the right. i have a duty to meet with him on proper occasions and provide advice as i am called upon to

do. i have done that. i believe he has a right to protect that on confidentiality until appropriate circumstances exist that he might choose to waive that privilege. >> all right. let me go to another aspect. president is facing three different lawsuits alleging he has violated the clause of the constitution. in these cases, strangely to me at least, the justice department is defending the president. what did the department due to determine it was appropriate to represent the president? was the office of legal counsel consulted? a.g. sessions: i believe so. i would say that it is the responsibility of the department of justice to get the office of the presidency caring on

activities against charges that are not deemed meritorious. >> and you believe that a moly ants -- emoluments is part of that charge? a.g. sessions: i guess i'm not able to discuss legally all the case law except to say we defensible. is we have taken the decision our top lawyers believe it is justified. >> let me go to another subject. arpaiodon of sheriff joe . president trump part the former share of convicted of criminal contempt for defining a court order to stop racially profiling

and detaining latino motorists based on suspicion they were undocumented immigrants. the washington post reported before he decided to pardon our patio the president asked you to drop the criminal case arpaio. did the president ask you whether the case against arpaio could be dropped? a.g. sessions: senator feinstein, i cannot comment on the private conversations i may have had with the president. attorneys in the department of justice at the request of the judge prosecuted that case. a federal judge found the defendant guilty of a misdemeanor. presidenttions, the decided to issue a pardon. process by which the decision was made to pardon

our pail? a.g. sessions: i am not aware of the details of it. to the extent i can provide you in writing i would be pleased to do so. the president has the power to issue pardons with or without the department of justice involved. that has been done in the past in some dramatic pardons. this pardon was within the power of the president to do. >> my understanding was the pardon requests goes through the office of the pardon attorney in the department of justice and decisions are made according to certain standards set up in that office's rules for executive clemency. it has been reported the process was not followed here as you indicate. saying in fact,

there was no process, the president simply made the decision to pardon rpo. a.g. sessions: i am not intending to say that at all. i am saying i am not personally at this moment prepared to give you an accurate answer because i don't know that i know it precisely. let me get you something in writing that would be accurate. i would prefer to do that. >> i am over. senator hatch: we appreciate the service you have given on this committee and in your current position. questions,ing to my i want to set the record straight, the washington post ran an article accusing congress of passing a bill last year that gutted dea enforcement authority

. ie article insinuates that senator whitehouse and others put one over on congress by sneaking through a bill that no one do anything about. , ranking member feinstein for these allegations are baloney and we know it. billommittee reported the by a full -- voice vote. every member of this committee supported the bill twice. i don't want to hear anyone claim they did not know anything about the bill. the bill was seven pages long. it took all of five minutes to read. if the senate minority leader was to decry this bill as he shouldable, remember he himself supported the bill twice. once an committee and again on

the floor. we all supported this legislation. we voted for it twice. i hope they will do so, i believe i deserve an opportunity to respond. moving on, i have a few questions and would appreciate it if you would keep your answers brief. i would like to discuss the often offered as a substitute for opioids. many states have adopted laws to legalize marijuana for medicinal use based on research suggesting there is some medicinal benefit or value to be found in it. i remain opposed to the broad legalization of marijuana. i introduced, along with senator 2017 becauseacting

i believe sciences need to study the potential benefits and dangers of marijuana. i'm concerned about reports the doj and dea are at odds on marijuana research, particularly when it comes to granting applications to grow marijuana for further research. can you clarify the position of the justice department? a.g. sessions: i'd be pleased. thank you for your leadership. i have been honored to serve under your chairmanship. research marijuana system working now. there is one supplier for the marijuana of that research. people have asked there be multiple sources of marijuana for medicinal mass research. they have asked it be approved.

i believe there are 26 applications for approval of suppliers who would provide marijuana for medicinal research. dea has to be supervised iv . i have raised questions about we'reny and let's be sure doing this in the right way because it costs a lot of money. i think it would be healthy to have more competition in the supply, but i am sure we don't need 26 new suppliers. remain hatch: i convinced we need to revisit the original intent requirements in our law. ,ecause of the lack of mens rea i believe many americans may be unwittingly breaking the law while not having the slightest idea their behavior may be illegal. i've recently introduced the mens rea reform act of 2017

which sets a default requirement unless a statute explicitly states that office will be a strict liability offense. mens rea agree that reform needs to be part of our conversation on criminal justice reform? should be partit of our conversation. you have made sure that it is your you have raised and discussed it. i have heard you articulate your concerns. i think it should be a part of what we do. we would be pleased to work with you to evaluate what kind of legislation might be appropriate. , you issued ago memorandum detailing 20 principles of religious liberty, and guidance for executive departments and agencies implementing those principles. the first principle is the most

important, they freedom of religion is a fundamental right paramount importance. not a mere policy preference to be traded against other policy preferences. it is a fundamental right. general sessions, would you say the status of religious liberty is a paramount right, imposes the same obligation on the legislative branch as it does on the executive branch? a.g. sessions: i think it does. i would just say this. your legislation you work so hard and passed, religious freedom restoration act was a part of the foundation of the principles we set out in that religious freedom guidance we produced. we believe there is a lack of appreciation of the rights of americans not only to have

private religious thoughts, but to exercise their religious freedom. that is what the constitution says. -- youuld have a right have raised that in the past. it was a part of what we did. legislation you and congress passed was part of what we were able to do. >> i would like to make a couple of comments. the decision to grant certain things in the microsoft ireland case. the topic remains controversial. i introduced the international communications privacy act to create a clear framework for determining when law enforcement may access to medications regardless of where those communications are stored. a matter which way the court rules i believe this is a policy

part, should the be the body that decides policies. i know my time has run, mr. chairman. >> senator leahy. thank you, mr. chairman and welcome, mr. attorney general. attorney general sessions: thank you, mr. leahy. when you appeared before the committee in january, i was concerned about your testimony and asked you in writing with eu had been in contact with anyone in the russian government about 2016

election. you answered emphatically, no. several learned about meetings between you and the russian ambassador. during the height of the 2016 campaign you reportedly met with lyak at ar kiss le trump campaign event on foreign event, at a republican and in your senate office, all while serving as chair of president trump's national security team. i've never accused you of colluding with russians, but you have clearly concealed your own contacts with russian officials, at a time when such contacts were of great interest to do the committee. one thing i do know, we have known each other for decades, we have worked together on many issues.

was intor jeff sessions my shoes, and he asked a question, he wouldn't tolerate being misled. you understand when members of this committee whiter answer, no, was false testimony? attorney general sessions: i appreciate the opportunity to talk about that. i believe my answer was correct. you have a question you asked. you started off in the preamble, thehe way, it said intelligence community has concluded that russia intervened in the 2016 election in an effort to help elect donald trump. in our interference elections is larger than any candidate and political party, it is about protecting our democracy. i agreed with that. then you asked a series of sub-parts, a-b-c-d. anytor: i asked if you had

contact with the russians. attorney general sessions: i just wanted to say, the context of all your questions dealt with campaign by in the russian officials. attorney general sessions: specifically, did you meet with any russian officials? attorney general sessions: the question you are referring to is subparagraph e, and it says several of the president and t elect's nominees and advisor have ties to the russian government. withu have any contact russian officials either before or after election day? mean, not anyt to casual conversation, but, did i participate with russians about the 2016 election. everyone of your previous

questions talk about improper involvement, and i felt of the answer was no. no, i did not meet them in any way about the election. senator: let me ask you about that, because later in march when you did disclose such meetings, you said you could not recall what was said at the meetings. your answer to my question was an emphatic, no. it wasn't, i don't recall. you are a lawyer. i am a lawyer. you are in fact, our nation's top lawyer. is there a difference between responding no, and i do not recall? attorney general sessions: yes. senator: thank you. attorney general sessions: certainly it is, senator leahy. so you couldn't answernssenato:

my first question, yes or no, if later you said, you couldn't recall what was discussed. u.s. intelligence reported in factthat you did in discussed campaign issues with the russian ambassador, candidateca trumps position on russian issues. let me ask you this. since the 2016 campaign, and have you discussed with any of the following, emails, russian sanctions, the magnitsky act and so-called since the 2016, campaign? attorney general sessions: senator leahy, i want to be accurate so i don't have any ambiguity about your questions. but that is a lot of questions. so, let's think about this.

i have never had a meeting with any russian officials to discuss any kind of coordinating campaign efforts. i know you are shaking your head. piecer: let's take this by piece. to discuss any of the following, emails? attorney general sessions: repeat the question. senator: since the 2016 campaign heavy discussed with any russian official, campaign emails? attorney general sessions: i don't recall any such discussions. senator: heavy discussed russian interference in our elections? attorney general sessions: no. senator: heavy discussed the adoption issue? attorney general sessions: i don't think i ever had any discussions about the magnitsky act. heavy discussed anything related to the campaign of the trump presidency? attorney general sessions: i'm

not sure about that. i met with the russian ambassador after i gave a speech at the republican convention. he was right in the front and we and heencounter there, asked for an appointment in my office later. i met with 26 ambassadors in the last year, and he was one of them. office with two of my senior defense specialists, and met with me for a while. and i don't recall any conversation about, what was the last subject? let me get right. you asked me? >> i think he wants you to repeat something. are -- anyy polys policies or positions of the truck campaigner presidency? attorney general sessions: i don't think there was any

discussion about details of the campaign, other then, it could have been in that meeting in my office or at the convention, that some comment was made about what trump's positions work. i think that is possible. attorney general sessions: have have you been interviewed or been requested to be interviewed, about the comey firing, or the russian investigation into russian officials? attorney general sessions: you would have to ask the special counsel. senator: no, i'm asking you. attorney general sessions: repeat the question. senator: have you been interviewed, or asks to be interviewed, about any contact with the russian officials? itorney general sessions: would be pleased to answer that but i am not sure i should without clearing that, with the special counsel. what do you think?

i'm just asking, haveons you been interviewed by them? attorney general sessions: know. -- no. mr. chairman, i appreciate the controversy and have a lot more senators along this line. >> mr. lee. mr. attorney general, thank you for being here. in may you implemented a new charging policy for federal prosecutors. the policy requires, as i understand it, that prosecute ors must be required to pursue the most provable, serious offense. policy permits prosecutors in some circumstances to apply

for approval to charge something less than the most serious offense that is readily provable. can you tell me what factors the department would be considering, deciding whether to give approval to prosecutors in those instances? attorney general sessions: senator lee, that memo's long-heldstablishes a position by the department of justice, that a prosecutor mostd prosecute the serious, readily-provable offense. obama department of justice, attorney general holder, declared you should not, and even directed you should not, charge what congress has said as a serious offense that

carries a minimum sentence. we were restoring what was previously set. and i was determined to have a capable,rective to our assistant united states attorneys. not have a long six page memorandum. we submit a one-page, slightly over one page memo to them, and it says if you think that is not just an you clear it with your u.s. attorney, or the designee of the u.s. attorney, you can charge less than the most serious, readily-renewable offense. you don't have to call washington. you don't have to get some bureaucracy. and i told them i hoped that would work and if we have serious problems we would revisit it. it requiresay, all is that the minimum sentence be imposed, the minimum mandatory. it doesn't require a maximum sentence, as some have said. it simply says, if you commit a

serious crime that congress says would carry a certain sentence, you shouldn't fail to charge that because you want a different sentencing results. do you keep track of how often prosecutors, and which prosecutors in particular, are departing from this? attorney general sessions: yes, we will. i'm not sure we have a formal process. deputy attorney general rob rosenstein is an experienced supervisor, 12 years of assisting united states attorneys. this in depthsed and feel like this is a sound policy for the department of justice, and essentially restores us to what it used to with even more flexibility than previous policies. justice in march, thomas issued a statement in a

case called leonard versus texas. in that statement he suggested that modern civil-asset practices may be unconstitutional, and cast doubt on the constitutionality of those procedures, as used by the federal government and many state governments. in may of this year i wrote a letter to you, asking whether the department would review its civil-asset forfeiture policies and practices. you announced new policies that expanded the department of justice's use of civil-asset forfeiture. can you tell me whether you have asked the office of legal counsel, or any other component of the department of justice, to provide a formal review of civil-asset forfeiture practices of the federal government, of the states, and particularly, the states and localities that participate in the equitable-sharing program with the department of justice?

attorney general sessions: we had an intense series of discussions in the department about this subject. it is one i am familiar with, having served as 12 years -- having served 12 years as a united states attorney myself, and having utilized this policy. the policy was changed by the former attorney general and it restricted the ability of asset-forfeiture in a number of ways. i simply restored the previous policy. the change only occurred to or three years ago. i believe it is the best policy, but i am aware of the serious concerns you have and others have. and placedtricted, some limits, on how we do these forfeitures and i have just announced the appointment of a or ofal direct accountability, to be in charge of all the forfeitures in the

night's states, to review them, to review any complaints that arise. we want to carry out this policy effectively and fairly, without abusing anybody's right. i would note that for decades, it has been affirmed by the supreme court. votest believe there are on the supreme court that would declare it somehow now, not legal. and we want to do it right. senator: i'm not sure that is clear, one where the other. i understand your position by think there is a lack of clarity on this. and i think the statement issued by justice thomas, in connection with the denial in leonard versus texas, does cast doubt on it. have you asked the office of legal counsel for depending on this? weorney general sessions: are simply restoring the law that has been in effect for decades. askedt know that we have a formal opinion of the office of legal counsel i don't think

it is necessary to do so. senator: ok. the reason i'm concerned about justice in our criminal system we have robust protections for the accused. you are entitled to a jury trial, a court-appointed counsel, you have a lot of due process protections, as someone accused in this country. if the courts can circumvent those rights, at least with of the to the property accused, or the property of someone who may not herself or himself be accused of a crime, but just as to which there is some suspicion about the involvement of the property, that present significant concerns. if the government can just seize the property and make it the government's property, rather than that of the owner, such that it reverses the presumption of innocence, it reverses the burden of proof, it eliminates the requirement that proof of a

crime be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. that is a concern. it's especially concerned where some states and local governments have adopted legislation restricting the use of this, and it has then been circumvented, with the help of the federal government, through this equitable-sharing program. i believe it needs to be reviewed and reviewed aggressively. attorney general sessions: briefly, a number of years ago, almost 10 years ago, senator schumer and i reached an accord when these issues were being raised. we raised the burden of proof, so a seizure of assets, often beh, those seizures cannot affected without probable cause to believe it's either a product of the drug, or criminal activity, orifice for said tony

used to facilitate criminal facility used a to facilitate criminal activity. prove itnment has to on ap ponderings of the evidence, which is a normal, civil standard in a civil lawsuit. and the probable cause standard, you can arrest an individual, a grand jury returns an indictment on probable cause, so it meets the same standard, really, that it would take to put somebody in jail. so, i think it is a sound policy. 80% of the seizures are not even contested when the drug enforcement administration sets up a procedure for claimants to make the claim. it is a sound policy, but we will continue to monitor it. im going to watch it even more closely than we have before, and

i would be please to stage medication with you and hear your concerns. durbin, and i will return before senator durbin is -- eerie senator: senator: welcome back to the committee. and theition on daca dreamers is well documented. butrney general sessions: it may not be quite as simple as you might suggest. leave rationale to you, to explain. but i know how you voted consistently against comprehensive immigration reform and any form of the dream act. but let me ask you this. last month you announce the trump administration was terminating the daca program. thatmy understanding according to long-standing justice department policy, the office of legal counsel is responsible for providing legal

advice to the executive branch on all constitutional questions. a 33 page memo on november 19, 2014, that concludes daca is lawful. it is a lawful exercise of executive authority. thewhen you go back to justice department after you're here today, check your website. that opinion is still on your website, that daca is lawful. me whetherplease to you consulted with career attorneys at the office of legal counsel before your announcement, that terminated daca. attorney general sessions: we did. we talked with a large number of experienced lawyers in the department. senator durbin, what i would say to you, and i believe this is accurate, that the so-called approval of daca by oh elsie, -- olc, office of legal counsel,

was based on the requirement that any action be done on an individual basis. the court has held, that struck down daca, that individual decisions were not being made and a blanket policy was, in effect, being carried out under the daca program, in reality, that was not on an individualized basis and therefore, that is why the court found it unlawful. senator: that statement is a departure from what is currently on the department of justice -- department of justice website. if you have a different opinion would you provide us a copy of that opinion? attorney general sessions: i would be happy to, but i think it is fair to say that the olc document said that a daca

program might be legal if it was done on an individualized basis. the department of justice can't just wipe out whole sections of american law, and just say we are not going to enforce it after congress has passed such a law. so, i would be glad to review it. senator: i hope you will. i hope you will. each dacae record, recipients is individually, individually interviewed, goes through an individual criminal background check, and determines whether there is individual eligibility. therney general sessions: court found otherwise. will show hope you that opinion. did you have any communication with the texas attorney general, or any other attorney general who was threatening to bring a -- to voidvoid daca, before the decision by the trump administration? attorney general sessions: i

would just say this. that kind of legal discussion, i believe would be part of the work product of the attorney general's office, and i should not reveal it. senator: you cannot tell me? you are saying that committee case and is privileged? that you had at communication with the texas attorney general about the threatened a lawsuit against a daca before the administrations announcement, and it is privileged? attorney general sessions: even to medications that we have are in fact, privileged. so i would say that is correct. if it isview it, and something i feel it is appropriate for me to reveal to you, i will do so. would havethink this been just about the moment when senator sessions of alabama would have been blown up. eventtorney general cannot tell us whether he communicated with another attorney general in another state. part of you statement

personally because i represent the city of chicago and i am honored to represent that city. it happened in las vegas was tragic and awful and heartbreaking. 59 people killed. over 500 wounded. by gunshots coming just a brief time, from some military-type weapon. it was just awful and horrific and disgusting. having said that, 3000 people have been injured by gunshots in the city of chicago and over 500 have been killed. this is not a political debate in my heart. it breaks my heart, to think what the families are going through in the city are represent. whosuperintendent of police is there, and you give credit to local law enforcement, and i join you in that, he has worked for the department for 30 years and want to read to you what he said. the federal department -- the federal government's plans will hamper community policing and undermine the work our men and women have done to reduce

shootings by 60% so far this year. and this is the sentence i want to focus on. i have said it before and i will say it again, undocumented immigrants are not driving violence in chicago. is why i want our officers focused on community policing and not trying to be immigration police. the money we hope to get from the federal government for burn grants, we are putting into a program called shot spotter. device in ourring city that can tell instantaneously where and when a gun has been shot. police can respond instantaneously to try to get the shooters and save the victim. you want to cut back these funds because you want the city of chicago to play the role of immigration police on federal, civil laws. mr. attorney general, you are not helping us solve the murder problem in the city of chicago, by taking away these federal funds. superintendent's visual

pursuit of undocumented immigrants as little or nothing to do with gun violence in chicago. well,ey general sessions: chicago is a great city. it has many good things going for it. i think this murder rate is a cloud over the city, and this year may be an even higher murder rate than last year. good, community-based policing is absolutely essential for this. i am worried about the health and morale of the chicago police department. we would like to see that improved. notink the politicians can say that if you remove a violent criminal from america, that is illegally in the country, and he is arrested by the chicago police, and put in the chicago jail, that once they are released that they should not be turned over to the federal ice officers so they can be removed from the country.

they were very illegally to begin with, much less commit another crime. how does that make the city of chicago safer when you don't remove criminals who are illegally in the country? anator: you can't give opening statement, throwing a bouquet to police, and then ignore what the superintendent of police in chicago tells you that it has nothing to do with gun violence. you want to come here instead and criticize the murder rate. itorney general sessions: have increased the number of prosecutors on gun violence in chicago by 12. governmentstates can't take over law enforcement for the city of chicago. we are not doing in new york and we not doing it for a lot of other places. we have made a surge of atf agents in chicago and we will continue to work with you. i do not want to not have grants go to the city of chicago but we need their support. and somebody's arrested

jailed and is due to be deported, we simply ask that they call us so that we can pick them up if they need to be removed. that is not happening and we have to work through it, some way. thank you, mr. chairman. general sessions, thank you and welcome back. thank you for your service. conspire with russia, or an agent of the russian government, to influence the outcome of the 2016 election? attorney general sessions: no. senator: do you want the special counsel who is investigating those matters, to succeed? attorney general sessions: i want him to complete his investigation professionally, yes. senator: if he asked for cooperation, would you give it? attorney general sessions: yes. av asked -- if he asked

to meet with you, would you meet with him? attorney general sessions: yes. absolutely. ask about newt to orleans. new orleans is extremely important to my state. -- governor tells a story the former governor tells a story about how he was meeting with 20 japanese businesspeople and he asked them, how many of you have been to louisiana? said 5, 5 japanese businesspeople raised their hand. then he said, how many have been to new orleans? and he said 15 raised their hands. it is a big part of our culture and our economy. we have got a crime problem in new orleans. as you know, we had a police officer killed in the line of duty this weekend. burn grants are very important to new orleans to help us fight crime. your office wrote a letter to my friend, mayor landrieu, asking city'sstions about his

compliance and let me cut to the chase. there have been allegations that new orleans is a sanctuary city. you have asked for information. mayor landrieu, who is again my friend, but you have to call them as you see them, wrote me back a very unprofessional letter. he called you caustic. he suggested you were just a mere politician. he said you were scapegoating immigrants. , andlled you a fearmonger we he called you a liar. i don't consider that to be productive discourse, so i apologize on behalf of louisiana. me, that weree with are a nation of immigrants? well,ey general sessions:

virtually the vast majority have immigrated here one time or another, for sure. senator: we are also a nation of laws, is that correct? attorney general sessions: that's correct. senator: if i don't agree with the law, do i have to follow it? attorney general sessions: yes. senator: i hate traffic cameras. i don't agree with them. do i have to follow the laws about traffic cameras? attorney general sessions: yes. senator: if i don't like laws about traffic cameras i need to go change them, right? attorney general sessions: that is correct. senator: would you make yourself available if i could arrange a meeting with you and your colleagues and mayor landrieu. new mayort to elect a and new orleans. to sit down, and work with the department of justice to resolve these allegations of being a sanctuary city, in a way the

justice department is comfortable with, so we can keep that money? attorney general sessions: absolutely, i would. and i would just say, senator kennedy. there were 10 cities during the last attorney general's tenure that were noted as being cities likely to be in violation of federal 1373 cooperative law, that requires cooperation on detainers with federal law officers. new orleans was one of those. about half of those have now gotten off the list. we would like to see new orleans get off the list, but we are not there yet. the mayor has talked openly about some of these strategies, where he describes what we are asking them to do is to go out

and arrest people in the city that are here illegally. we are not asking that. when the citythat arrests somebody that is illegally in the country, or some other crime, to communicate with us, give us notice before they are going to be released becauseo the community, our ice officers may find that they are due to be deported. illegally, and they commit another crime, they are to be deported. that is what the law says and we intend to do. and it is amazing to me that the mayors are so hostile to that request. i don't think it is my duty to give grants up to cities that are failing and the most fundamental relationship between two federal-state jurisdictions. i don't mean july the you are picking on new orleans.

you sent a similar letter to new york city, and i believe, philadelphia. and i think it is clear that our mayor in new does not agree with america's immigration laws. and i understand that. this is america. you can believe what you want. but my understanding is that we have to follow those lost. and my understanding, as well, is that all the justice department is asking is that the city of new orleans follow federal law, or go change it. is that your understanding? attorney general sessions: that is correct. in fact, we should really strengthen 1373. fors a commonsense request partnership with our state and locals that we support, in any number of ways.

i would like to see our relationships to get even better, it is a key to crime-fighting. thank you, general. senator: thank you, chairman. welcome back, attorney general sessions. just to opening questions. over and over again, in this committee and others, we have heard the intelligence and national security professionals of our country, and people who study those issues professionally, warn us that campaign and election interference by the russians is not going away, that we can expect more of it in the 2018 election, that we can expect more of it in the 2020 election. what i would like to know from you is the name of a department in the department of justice -- the name of the person in the department of justice whose job it is to look at data make recommendations to the senate as

to what legislative remedies we should pursue to prevent that activity from happening. is there such a person and what is his or her name? attorney general sessions: i think that would fall in our national security division which is led by dana boente. inis a former u.s. attorney northern virginia, pointed by president obama. let me be frank. i don't know if we are doing a specific legislative review, at this point. senator: do you think it would be prudent? we have been warned. attorney general sessions: i think that is a suggestion. with your time in the department of justice, you could contribute to that discussion, so i would be glad to discuss it with you. senator: similarly, there is an executive order out of the white house regarding cyber security, that is more or less a call for information from various cabinet departments. there has been,

no proposed legislation of any kind. my conversations with mr. tom havert at the white house not produced any type of liaison or, way of going forward on this issue. there are multiple congressional committees that touch on cyber security, and it really complicates life if there is not somebody at the department of justice whose job it is to work with us on cyber security legislation. and the silence has been deafening. of au could get me a name person whose responsibility at the department of justice is to work with the senate on cyber security legislation, that, i think, would help move things forward. attorney general sessions: i will do that. there are two levels of it. hope you would call our legislative affairs to talk about legislation. thisor: or, i could bring

up with you here, right now. we have trouble getting answers to anything from the department of justice. i have a list of unanswered letter,january 2017 unanswered. a february 2017 letter, and unanswered. --tember 2015 letter september 2017 letter, unanswered. renewed july 27, unanswered. letter, renewed and unanswered. 26 letter, unanswered. so, please don't refer me to the people who are supposed to be in charge of this relationship when they want even answer my mail. myorney general sessions: new director was just confirmed, recently and we have cut the backlog by half and we will continue to cut that backlog and we will get on it. another thing, knowing that you are particularly knowledgeable about these complex issues and

you would like to talk to attorney who is -- talk to an attorney who is actively working with the cases. the issue is, there are things we need to fix legislatively on cyber security. and at the moment i can't find a point of entry in this administration, of anyone that is working on cyber security or it is delegated to. so that is the person i need, not just an update on cases. i'm familiar with that stuff. attorney general sessions: i understand. senator: executive privilege. we talked about it. the reason i sent you the letter would be so that you would be prepared to talk about executive privilege and this would not be . gotcha moment have you changed the guideline under which the department of justice operates?

it is the document that executivehow the branch will respond to the claim of executive privilege. let me know if any of this has changed. rule says executive privilege will only be asserted in the most compelling circumstances and shall not be invoked without specific .esidential authorization is that still the rule? attorney general sessions: that's a good role. senator: the attorney general

has the authority to determine, on his own, that executive religion shall not be invoked. you can make the decision not to invoke executive privilege, yourself. attorney general sessions: the attorney general does not have the power to invoke it, only the president can. senator: but you can determine that it shall not be invoked. you have the negative power. you can make that determination under paragraph three, correct? attorney general sessions: i'm not sure about that. i don't think so. senator: ok. i'm reading aloud. the department head, the attorney general, may exercise and determine that executive privilege shall not be invoked when releasing the requested information. the attorney general it says it right there. itorney general sessions: don't believe you can do it without the approval of the president. toator: of course you have

release information without the approval of the president. you do it all the time. attorney general sessions: you the corealking about of privileges of the executive branch, private conversations. senator: even for that, there is still this rule that the issue has to be presented to the president. that they callnt , a.quest of abeyance. you have a. of the bands that you are allowed to request. claim of later, the executive privilege must be made with the specific approval of .he president and my concern is that this time -- how long a.

how long a period of the-based you need. you can't have something where the president doesn't declared in the. -- and the abeyance goes on forever. --orney general sessions: private conversations with his attorney general. your letter failed and. it was sort of the reverse. it said you have to tell us what you are going to do, and want to talk about, and what you're not going to talk about. to refer totended the questions about which you

would assert an interim executive privilege. we will pursue this when i have more time. attorney general sessions: just briefly, i have to say that the executive branch is a co-equal branch. someonewould not want demanding to know who you talked to in your office, your counsel, your chief of staff. neither would we want to be prowling willy-nilly through the supreme court, what their clerks knew and what they were told by the justice's leading up to some decision that is not popular. so, i would just urge us all to first and foremost, respect the 'sgitimacy of any president right to seek advice in confidence. eisenhower's once reported to

have said, if one of my advisors reports the advice they gave me during the day, they will be fired that night. this is not a little matter. that is all i'm saying to you. and if this isn't legitimate and you make the specific case, we will review it. it shouldn't be done casually, i have to say. senator: my time is up. senator: before i call on senator graham, has the intelligence committee, since you told them, similar to what you told us today, attempted to compel you to either answer specific questions, or claim privilege or subpoenaed you, in any way to get answers to the questions? attorney general sessions: i don't believe so, mr. chairman. senator: senator graham. .enator: thank you for the record, that was more than just a little bit. i thought it was

important for the white house, and senator sessions. was important, but it was not a little bit. ok. i am joking. i am joking. senator: joking, ok. [laughter] senator: and i want my time back, for joking. senator: give him back his time. there you go. on august 30, senator grassley and i sent a letter to the department of justice, wanting information related to the drafting of memos exonerating secretary clinton before the july statement of fbi director call me. -- fbi director james comey. we got nothing back. do you think we will ever get an answer to that letter? attorney general sessions: did you get an answer or explaining why it can't be answered?

senator: either way. apparently on the fbi website, they have got emails with no content, suggesting the james may was talking. and the title of this thing, what is the title of this thing, the email? drafts of director comey's july 2016 statement regarding the email server investigation. that is what the title of this thing is. but when you look at it, there is nothing there. so apparently, in may, comey was talking to senior staff about clearing clinton before he ever talked to her. are you aware of this? attorney general sessions: well, i have not been engaged in that. senator: well who is engaged in that? who do i talk to?

who do i talk to about getting my letter answered? attorney general sessions: you should direct your letter to the deputy attorney general to the legislative affairs. senator: and the reason we wrote that letter, is because there is act investigation of the former fbi director, that the committee's office of special counsel gave transcriptd to the committee -- gave transcript to the committee, were to senior people -- gave transcripts to the committee, where to senior two senior people talk about drafting this memo before july, before he interviewed her. so, if you could have somebody answer the question, we would appreciate it. thank you. sentencing reform. there are many members of this

committee that are looking and try to reform sentencing for offenders.and foun would you be willing to work with us in that endeavor? attorney general sessions: i certainly would. when you talk about a wall along the mexican border, is that a 2200 mile wall? attorney general sessions: that is not what the president expects it to be. senator: but it will not be 2200 miles? attorney general sessions: no, it will not. senator: do you support a path to citizenship for dream act kids if we can get good border security and return? attorney general sessions: i have not supported anything about citizenship, but i am prepared to say and i think i have said previously, something can be worked out on this. but he can't just be one-sided. senator: gotcha.

i agree with that. i agree with that. i want to talk about russia. did you ever hear of anybody in the clinton campaign, talking about having collaborated with the russians? attorney general sessions: you mean in the media? senator: did you ever overhear a conversation between you and anybody on the campaign, to talk about meeting with the russians? attorney general sessions: you said the clinton campaign. senator: the truck campaign. i apologize. attorney general sessions: i have not seen anything that would indicate a collusion with russians, to impact the campaign. aware of are you any meeting between donald trump jr., paul manafort, and russians in the russian tower -- and russians in the trump tower? attorney general sessions: no. senator: were you aware of the

content of that meeting? attorney general sessions: no one ever told me about the content of that meeting. in i know about is what was the news, which i have not followed very closely. as the clinton email investigation, do you know if there was a phone call between the former attorney general and the white house, regarding whether she should take a meeting with former president clinton on the tarmac? attorney general sessions: no. senator: is there any way to we could find that out? would there be records available? attorney general sessions: the inquiry should be properly directed to the deputy attorney general. senator: ok, i will do that. the so-called trump dossier was ever used but the justice department to seek a warrant under fisa. attorney general sessions: i don't know. senator: could you find out if that happened? attorney general sessions: i

believe it would be directed to someone else in the department, but you should make that inquiry and you deserve yes or no response. gaveor: secretary comey three reasons at various times, and i can't find my seat here, about why he jumped into the case in july. first, if that is the main reason the president wanted to fire them, jumping into the mill investigation and taking it over in an unprecedented way, which i agree with, why did it take so long? attorney general sessions: the investigation? senator: no, the firing? yourney general sessions: mean, why did the president -- senator: the president knew when he was inaugurated that james comey jumped into the middle of the clinton email investigation into the job of the attorney general over. that is the main reason that he was firebird why did he wait so long to fire james comey? attorney general sessions: i'm not sure he ever grasped the full, important facts eerie he

asked the deputy, attorney general rosenstein, and that is the recommendation we gave him. it is something everybody familiar with the department of justice has been buzzing about for months. senator: this is very important. i have got nine seconds. i know james comey told other committees the main reason he got involved in july, to take over the investigation, was not because of the tarmac meeting. it was because he was worried there was any mail in the hands email inssians -- and the hands of the russians between the doc in the department of justice. i know that testimony exists. some claim the mail was saved. you know anything about this and is there any way for us to find out what actually happened? attorney general sessions: you are suggesting one where the other, that i know anything about it, i would say that would be improper for me to share, at this time, if i knew. part of thewas just

questioning to attorney general jeff sessions come earlier today, about oversight issues at the justice department. we will show you his entire hearing tonight at 8:00 eastern, here on c-span. on c-span2, president trump means with members of the senate finance committee to talk about tax reform. and on c-span3, senate hearing on federal funding for scientific research. the house, and recess this week, but centers are in town. they're working on the 2018 budget resolution. on the floordebate about an amendment offered by senator dean heller, the republican from nevada. it would assume some $5 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years and the congressional budget office says the plan would cut the deficit in half over that time. senators have been working on amendments with several votes, and a couple of more coming today, with a possible passage vote on thursday.

follow the senate live on c-span 2. >> close your eyes for a moment. and stretch. close your eyes. i see you. i want you to stretch your imagination

left to still work in the same position in which he was harassing you. is the way our society